Allahabad High Court

SMT. KIRAN SANKHWAR AND OTHERSversusASHOK KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS

Decided: 24 September 2026
Bench: SANDEEP CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

The appellant sought compensation for the death of Suresh Kumar Shankwar, who was struck by a tanker on 12 September 1999. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, deeming the sole eyewitness, PW‑3 Raghvendra Singh, unreliable. On appeal, the High Court examined the inconsistencies in PW‑3’s testimony, including contradictory statements about his prior acquaintance with the family and the timing of his report of the vehicle’s registration number. The Court found that these contradictions rendered the witness’s evidence untrustworthy and that the Tribunal’s decision to discard his deposition was justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s original order.

Issues considered

Whether the testimony of PW‑3 is reliable and can be relied upon to establish the accident and vehicle registration number.
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition on the basis of the eyewitness's credibility.
Whether the omission of the vehicle registration number in the FIR affects the claimant's case.

Subjects

motor accident
negligence
eyewitness testimony
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
evidentiary reliability
appeal dismissal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3414 of 2008

Smt. Kiran Sankhwar And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ashok Kumar Pandey And Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Shikhar
Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajay Singh, Radhey Shyam, Shreesh
Srivastava

Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohan Yadav holding brief of Mr. Shikhar Awasthi and Mr.
Ajay Singh and Mr. Shrivastav for the respondents.

2. The present First Appeal From Order is directed against the judgment
and award dated 18.08.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar, in Claim
Petition No. 670 of 1999, whereby the claim petition filed by the
claimant/appellant has been rejected by the learned Tribunal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased, Suresh Kumar
Shankwar, after taking his breakfast at about 6:00 a.m. on 12.09.1999, went
outside his house for a walk. When he reached near Hari Masjid, Barra,
District Kanpur, at about 7:30 a.m., a tanker bearing Registration No. UP-
78-T-1153, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, came and
knocked down the deceased. He was immediately rushed to a nearby nursing
home, where he was declared dead by the doctor.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the Tribunal
accepted the factum of the accident, it dismissed the claim petition on an
erroneous premise, holding that the eyewitness produced by the claimant
was not reliable. It was submitted that PW-3, Raghvendra Singh @ Chheda
Lal, had witnessed the accident at the spot. His deposition is sufficient to
demonstrate that he was present at the spot and had not only witnessed the
accident but had also noted the registration number of the offending vehicle.
He was cross-examined by the respondents, but they were unable to elicit
FAFO No. 3414 of 2008
2

anything substantial so as to discredit his testimony. It was further
submitted that the FIR in the present case was duly lodged, but the same was
also disbelieved by the learned Tribunal without assigning any proper
reason. It was submitted that the testimony of PW-3 was discarded on the
ground that, despite being acquainted with the deceased and his family
members, he had failed to immediately inform them about the accident. The
said finding is perverse and unsustainable. It is not necessary that each and
every eyewitness or victim should react in the same manner or in accordance
with the assumptions and presumptions of others. Therefore, merely because
this witness did not go to the house of the claimant immediately after the
accident to inform them about the same, his testimony cannot, on that
ground alone, be considered suspicious or doubtful. Therefore, the finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
deposition of PW-3 is not reliable. There are contradictions in his testimony
which render it doubtful. He did not state in his examination-in-chief that the
deceased or his family members were previously known to him, but stated
contrary facts in his cross-examination and deposed that he knew them prior
to the accident. He also stated that he left the spot after the accident and went
to the house of his employer, whose tempo he was driving as a driver.
Therefore, the deposition of this witness was rightly discarded by the learned
Tribunal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded
by the learned Tribunal.

7. It is apparent that the alleged accident occurred on 12.09.1999 and that
the First Information Report lodged in respect of the said accident does not
mention the registration number of the offending vehicle. Three witnesses
were produced by the claimant to prove the accident. Smt. Kiran Shankwar
was examined as PW-1. She is the wife of the deceased and stated that she
had not witnessed the alleged accident, as she was at home. The brother of
the deceased, Narendra Kumar, was examined as PW-2. He deposed that he
went to the spot after receiving information about the accident and thereafter
immediately went to the concerned nursing home, where he was informed
that his brother had been admitted. Thereafter, he reached the police station
and lodged the FIR. When this witness was cross-examined, he stated that
FAFO No. 3414 of 2008
3

PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, arrived at his house on the following day and
informed him about the registration number of the offending vehicle.
Contrary to this, PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, deposed that he went to the
house of the deceased on the same day in the evening and informed the
family members of the registration number of the offending vehicle.

8. It is pertinent to mention that the examination-in-chief of PW-3,
Raghvendra Singh, reveals that the family members of the deceased and the
said witness were not known to each other prior to the accident. However, he
stated contrary facts in his cross-examination and deposed that they were
known to him prior to the accident. The testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, if
examined in their entirety, demonstrate that they are inconsistent and
contrary to each other. If the vehicle number was known to the parties by
any means, the question arises as to why PW-2 omitted to mention the
vehicle number in the FIR. The claimant has failed to offer any plausible
explanation in this regard. The deposition of PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, as an
eyewitness, if examined in its entirety, leads to the conclusion that neither
was he present at the spot nor had he informed the family members of the
deceased about the accident or the registration number of the offending
vehicle. Had he known the deceased and his family members prior to the
accident, there was no reason for him to leave the spot immediately after the
accident.

9. It is apparent that the version of the claimant regarding the presence of
this witness at the spot is not trustworthy and that this witness was
subsequently produced by the claimant to prove his case. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal,
discarding the deposition of PW-3, Raghvendra Singh, does not warrant any
interference.

10. Accordingly, this First Appeal From Order is dismissed.

September 25, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…